First, many thanks to Scott for his willingness to discuss these things and allay people's fears.
Second...
Since he's bothered to post on this thread, presumably his goal was to answer the concerns of the other posters. If those posters don't feel that he has answered their concerns, there's nothing wrong with them trying to express more clearly what they're worried about.
Also, chill with the hyperbole. Sure, nobody dies if 4E breaks. That doesn't mean we want it broken.
While I was initially worried about this, I've reconsidered that position, mostly on the basis of stuff like the Tome of Battle, which is intimately tied in with 4E and came out quite well-balanced (setting aside the occasional glitch like White Raven Tactics, but there will always be those). Presumably the same method was used to playtest the ToB, which was a fairly substantial change to the existing system for melee warriors. If it worked there, it ought to work now.
Moreover, the design of 4E appears to be much easier to balance overall. Less "stacking" (of classes, templates, et cetera) means a much more predictable and controllable system.
Still, I don't think the initial worry was unwarranted. I've seen teams with stellar resumes screw things up on very basic levels--see for instance Master of Orion III, which was a horrible mess made by a bunch of very smart people who let groupthink blind them to the fundamental problems with their plan. Watching that game implode taught me that when someone outside the team sees what appears to be a serious problem, and people inside the team dismiss that concern out of hand, it isn't necessarily the case that the people inside are right and the person outside is wrong.
Second...
mhensley said:Why on earth do you think he owes you an answer? You do realize this is a game we're talking about? You stress test bridges, computer programs, buildings - you know important stuff. This is a game. Nobody dies if it breaks. Calm down.
Since he's bothered to post on this thread, presumably his goal was to answer the concerns of the other posters. If those posters don't feel that he has answered their concerns, there's nothing wrong with them trying to express more clearly what they're worried about.
Also, chill with the hyperbole. Sure, nobody dies if 4E breaks. That doesn't mean we want it broken.
While I was initially worried about this, I've reconsidered that position, mostly on the basis of stuff like the Tome of Battle, which is intimately tied in with 4E and came out quite well-balanced (setting aside the occasional glitch like White Raven Tactics, but there will always be those). Presumably the same method was used to playtest the ToB, which was a fairly substantial change to the existing system for melee warriors. If it worked there, it ought to work now.
Moreover, the design of 4E appears to be much easier to balance overall. Less "stacking" (of classes, templates, et cetera) means a much more predictable and controllable system.
Still, I don't think the initial worry was unwarranted. I've seen teams with stellar resumes screw things up on very basic levels--see for instance Master of Orion III, which was a horrible mess made by a bunch of very smart people who let groupthink blind them to the fundamental problems with their plan. Watching that game implode taught me that when someone outside the team sees what appears to be a serious problem, and people inside the team dismiss that concern out of hand, it isn't necessarily the case that the people inside are right and the person outside is wrong.
Last edited: